Talk:All Good Things... (episode)
FA status FA nomination is, I think, one of the best episode summaries I've seen on MA to date. Ottens wrote most of it. I made some modifications, and I think it is now ready (maybe needs a link/spelling/gramar check, but that's all) -- Redge 21:24, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST) : Support, with check. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:44, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST) :: You added lots of technobabble indeed. :P Well, supported, of course. Ottens 12:55, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST) That's the best part of the episode! (And it makes for soe interesting links to be filled) ;-) -- Redge | ''Talk'' 18:52, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::: Archived --Alan del Beccio 03:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Featured? Can anyone find the voting process for this article to become featured? With the many red links and the (for a two-hour show) short summary compared to other FA-episodes I don't see how it became featured in this condition. Kennelly 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) : It's been featured since August 16, 2004 (see here). Looking through histories, the discussion was made here, but it wasn't archived then. : Because of the 2.5+ years between now and then, a good argument can be made for removing FA status (although I personally don't think redlinks should be taken into consideration).--Tim Thomason 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Votes for FA removal ; : This article was originally nominated and awarded FA status on August 16, 2004, for a rather beautiful summary. Since then, the summary has been changed dramatically. Some paragraphs have been merged and shortened, taking away the essence of the article. Also, this article features a rather short summary for a featured (two hour long) episode. There are some non-featured articles with longer summaries for episodes that are only one hour long. In addition, the organization of the trivia is very loose, jumping from cast, to set, to character, and back again.--Nmajmani 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :Then perhaps you ought to be going through the edit history and using it to fix these issues (while keeping any new information that has been added since the the time the article was featured, of course). - :: Bump. This needs some attention one way or the other or the dispute tag needs to be pulled. --Alan 10:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ::: Keep. The background order changes are minor and the quotes could be reduced but those are minor changes. The rest is ok by me. Logan 5 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC) I'm just going to pull this. I'll remove this 24 hours from when I post, and change the status back to FA. -Nmajmani 11:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC) :: Archiving. --Alan 07:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Mistakes I've found three errors while reviewing the episodes: #Data says the three tachyon pulses all have the same configuration and are all generated by the Enterprise, but in fact one of them is generated by the Pasteur. #The anti-time reaction didn't form until after the scans in the future, while they should really be getting smaller and smaller until the pulse is activated, and it disappeared. The Pasteur should have detected the anomaly, and the anomaly found by the Enterprise later on shouldn't be there. #Past-Data reports he is ready to initiate a static warp shell, but Picard hadn't mentioned the concept at all, but acts natural. Only three errors over two episodes is not bad for Star Trek, but I doubt these are the only two mistakes, though they are (I think) the most apparent ones. -- Redge 21:07, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Those errors should be included on the page, I guess. Ottens 12:19, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Is the page still in use, BTW? Ottens 12:22, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) Not since I removed the msg. I'll add the mistakes. Anyone else finds any, post them here first in case your missing something and it isn't a mistake. I'm not entirely sure about the third one, so I'll double check later. -- Redge 14:01, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::Third is not a mistake. Picard mentions it in his big speech to the 2364-crew just prior to that. "...we have to take the ship into the very centre of the phenomenon and create a static warp shell. Now, this will put the ship at risk..." It's a diversion from the script - an addition more than anything - but it seems designed to correct that mistake (which was present in the final draft). -- Michael Warren 14:43, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) :::Another Mistake ?: :::I don't know if this is a mistake, but Data appears to be a junior Lieutenant during the "past". To my knowledge he was second in command and Lieutenant Commander by then. But probably some things are just different in that timeframe... – Friedie 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I've already put it on, but in the past timeline, the chase lights under the viewscreen are moving the wrong way; outwards, not inwards. Prototype 01 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, by the time the tachyon pulse was fired they had been evacuated to Riker's Enterprise already. ThetaOrion 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I have detected a mistake, which I first posted in the article as: *During the first season, the two seats for the conn officer and the operations officer had headrests, these were not present in the subsequent seasons. The headrests should have been present in the 2364 timeline, however, they were not. The proof for that they were not present is the picture to the left. That they did exist is seen in almost every season 1 episode (I think all). As far as I could see, they were present in , here at youtube. In my eyes, it is not the same seat/chairs (whatever you would like to call them). -- 15:37, November 4, 2009 (UTC) ::::@Junior Lieutenant: But Picard addresses him as Commander Data and we all know, Data would've corrected him immediately. -- 09:57, February 11, 2011 (UTC) Here is a way around the whole pulse issue. In all three of the timelines, Data was the one who did the programming for it/them. As far as the other versions would know, it was the Enterprise that fired the pulse rather then the Pastur due to the same signiture Smeg Head 12:45, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Syndication * "This episode was the last in the series. In first-run, it was feature-length, later cut into two for syndication. Several scenes from the original version were cut for time." Does anyone know what scenes were cut?-- 23:57, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) :There's been a discussion below about the scene when an aged Q confronts Picard on the Pasteur. This scene is cut the episode runs on Spike TV. While the image for the episode is from this scene, it also does not appear in the summary. If anyone has a copy of the feature length version, we could fill in these holes. --theinfinity42 15:40 9 December 2006 (UTC). I have the full-length version. But seeing as I DON'T have the short version I can't help unless people have heard rumors I could verify to be true or false. For instance, there IS a part with Q talking to Picard... They have a short conversation. --Merl0ck Deleted Scene Didn't Martha Hackett play a character in a deleted scene? -- Tough Little Ship 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :IMDB says she was an uncredited alian captain in a deleted scene, but this is the first I've heard of it. Jaz talk 21:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) ::According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion: A scene cut for time featured actress Martha Hacket (sic) as Androna, who would have been the first-ever depicted Terellian despite her having only two arms. --Jörg 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :::Are you correct about that spelling and the arm reference? Because that info is currently kept at Terrellian (Alpha Quadrant). Jaf 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf ::It is exactly like that in the Companion. Here's the complete quote dealing with all things Terellian: ::A scene cut for time featured actress Martha Hacket (sic) as Androna, who would have been the first-ever depicted Terellian despite her having only two arms (see notes, /254); as it was, Braga still inserted mention of the Terellian Death Syndrome, perhaps the same as the Terellian plague (sic) ( "/271). ::And here's the missing scene from the script of the episode: ::*WORF: "Captain... there are five Terrellian transport ships holding position in the Devron system." ::*TASHA: "We're being hailed by the lead ship." ::*PICARD: "On screen." ::INCLUDE VIEWSCREEN (OPTICAL) ::Which now shows a Terrellian pilot named ANDRONA. ::*ANDRONA: "Enterprise, you are a welcome sight. We've been receiving threats from the Romulan Empire ever since we entered the Neutral Zone. I'm glad to see you're here to protect us." ::*PICARD: "Why have you come here?" ::Androna's expression brightens a little. ::*ANDRONA: "We heard about the Light... from a merchant ship who told us about the power it has to heal illness... to rejuvenate the elderly... and we had to come here." ::The others on the Bridge look a little confused... they've never heard about any of this. ::*PICARD: "We can't really be certain that the... Light... has this power. And there may be dangers, side effects we're not aware of..." ::*ANDRONA: "I have five ships full of sick and dying people, Captain. If there's even a chance it's true, I can't turn back now." ::*PICARD: "It would be safer for all concerned if you left the Neutral Zone... and let us investigate the phenomenon more fully." ::*ANDRONA: "No. I've come too far." ::Picard is frustrated, but has no authority to order them away. ::*PICARD: "I warn you that if the Romulans should decide to intervene, I may not be able to protect you." ::*ANDRONA: "I understand. We'll take that risk. (beat, then smiles) Good luck, Captain." ::The Transmission ENDS. Picard thinks for a moment, then heads for the Ready Room. :You see the text from the Companion has several mistakes: ::#Martha Hackett's name is spelled wrong ::#The script refers to Terrellians, not to Terellians ::#Terellian Death Syndrome and Terrellian plague were mixed up. The Death syndrome was mentioned in and the "Terrellian plague appears for the first time in "All Good Things...", it was furthermore spelt wrong (it's Terrelian plague in the script (not a cut scene) and not Terellian plague as in the Companion). ::Wow, did that clear anything up? ;-) --Jörg 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :::Haha, not really, but thanks just the same. I asked because I was wondering if this made it more likely that they are actually one species and not two. Jaf 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf Stephen Matthew Garvey's Ensign? Which era did this ensign make an appearance, and more to the point... which ship was he on? It would be nice to be able to add him to the relevant unnamed personnel listing along with a picture. -- Sulfur 17:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC) :Long time ago, but here he is Stephen Matthew Garvin. – Tom 06:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Contradiction over trial For Sulfur - regarding version 345122, if the trial never "truly ended" then a verdict couldn't have been arrived at, yet Q claimed so in . Either Q was lying then or is lying in the finale. Either way, there's a contradiction. - 01:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC) :No contradiction whatsoever. Q regularily "expands" on the truth. Heck, for all we know, in Q's "timeline", "Q Who" could take place millenia after the end of "All Good Things" Point being, Q stretches the truth all the time. Since we see a trial in this episode, we can safely assume that the trial is still ongoing and that Q wasn't telling the truth or was intentionally misleading Picard previously. -- Sulfur 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ''Point being, Q stretches the truth all the time. - Just because the audience grants him the leeway, doesn't mean there's no contradiction; only that it's a routine occurence, hence ignored. Anyway, it's no biggie so I'll drop it. - 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ::Also, he said the Enterprise crew were exonerated for the crimes of humanity, not that humanity itself had been exonerated; secondly, he may have just said that in order to gain more trust to see if Picard would allow him to become a member of the Enterprise crew. --From Andoria with Love 02:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Old Q What's with the "old" Q (with the white hair) in that picture? I never saw him in the finale. What was the scene about? Torlek 07:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :During a scene on which Picard was on the future Enterprise-D, Q appeared as an old man to mock Picard's old age. In reality, Q is actually ageless (at least, according to Q). --From Andoria with Love 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ::That scene actually took place on the Pasteur. 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :::Is it possible that this scene is cut when All Good Things... is played in syndication (as on Spike)? It was just on this afternoon, and I can assure you that scene did not happen. I remember watching when the episode first aired in '94, and I do seem to recall that scene, though. --theinfinity42 00:06 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::::When feature length episodes are cut into two-part episodes, they also generally lose a scene or two to compensate for the extra time needed to recap the first part episode and to play the title theme. As for Spike TV with TNG (much like Sci-Fi Channel with TOS), they've taken the liberty to cut episodes down even further to fit in more commercial time. --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I hapen to have the episode on DVD and this scene is included. However, I am wondering if anyone would approve changing this image due to its conditional appearance with a more common appearance in the episode (like the anti-time anomoly). However, I can assure any concerns, just watching this episode ten minutes ago, that this scene does indeed take place. Also, This scene is about two minutes long, and for tv purposes, I can understand its cutting. If one rents the DVD, thwy can see this mysterious scene.– Nmajmani 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani Goofs I removed the following goofs (a.k.a. nitpicks) as per a discussion on Ten Forward: * One of the most significant plot oversights in the series occurs in this episode. The anomaly is determined to grow larger as it moves further into the past (in other words, growing smaller with normal time). However, after initially not finding the anomaly in the future, the crew decide that if they return, they might see the formation of the anomaly. Despite the fact that they return later than they originally were there, the anomaly has indeed formed. * In the present, Data states that there are three beams seemingly all from the Enterprise merging at the center of the anomaly. However, the beam from the future originated from the Pasteur, not the future Enterprise. * While none in the future initially believes that Picard is jumping through time, he never brings up the simple option of having someone run the same test on his memories that Dr. Crusher runs in the present to prove he is not just hallucinating. * Incorrect Captain's chair is used in the past time line * Data's rank pip incorrectly reflect the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade when in fact he is a Lieutenant Commander --From Andoria with Love 01:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Red Links Shouldn't we cut down on the proportion of red links to blue links? It looks kind of.. wierd, at first glance. 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :Sure, make articles for them. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Warp 10 One of the background info bullet points states that it is apparently possible in the anti-time future to go faster than Warp 10. This seems somewhat inaccurate; I think it would be more appropriate to say that "in the anti-time future, the warp scale has been recalibrated to include Warp speeds above ten, as the future Enterprise engages at Warp 13." After all, Warp 10 is "infinite speed" in the "normal" scale, so going "faster" than it doesn't make sense. Gregly 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) :Not really. When you are in a wormhole, by normal standards, you are faster than warp 10. Besides, It's been 25 years. We don't know the advancements made in that time. -Nmajmani 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani ::Actually, that's wrong, on the normal Warp speed chart, Warp 10 is infinite speed. Therefore, no matter how fast you go, through a wormhole or anything else, your speed would always be between 0 and 10. It might be 9.999...etc, but it would never be able to actually reach 10. -- 18:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC) :Well, Tom Paris made Warp 10 in one episode. So it is possible in a minimum of 25 years that they can travel that fast. --Nmajmani 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani :::When Tom Paris made warp 10, he made it to infinite speed - i.e., he was everywhere at once, as was explained in the previous comments. Lazerlike42 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC) City of Death This episode borrows heavily from the Dr. Who episode City of Death, especialy the primordial-ooze scene. Should the article perhaps mention this? --Howdybob 05:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) : If you can cite it. --Alan 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) ::I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it borrows heavily. I've seen City of Death many times and while the primordial-ooze scene and the idea of a character in multiple time periods may be there, in essence they're nothing alike. CleverAndKnowsIt 03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "I cheat" qoute It's been a long time since I've seen this episode, but I think the first line of that conversation was spoken by Worf. :Your're right. I just watched the episode last night. I'll change the page to reflect this.--Nmajmani 11:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani Note to all who visit this page OK. I just want to let everyone know of a mini-project I have embarked on. Over the next few days, starting tomorrow, I will be rewriting the entire episode summary from scratch. As this is a rather large edit, I ask that no-one make any large contributions to this articles episode summary, as I will simply be replacing the whole thing. The goal here is to get a summary online that complements this articles FA status, and to write portions for syndicated deleted scenes. (i.e. a summary for the full feature-length episode). So again, I ask that no-one please edit the summary of this article over the course of the next few days. Thanks for any cooperation, and if anyone has a copy of the syndicated episode, could you please let me know about the several cuts after the new summary is up. Again, thanks to all. --Nmajmani 03:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) :You could add the ' ' tag to the top of the page then. – Cleanse 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC) I thought that tag only applied while the edit is in process. It's a several day edit, and I'll be working on my computer's text editor. but if it should be there, I'll add it now. --Nmajmani 12:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC) OK. I just added the new summary. I am going to go through now and add links and pictures, but please don't take it down. Also, comments would be greatly appreciated. Remember, this summary is of the entire feature-length episode, and includes the controversial "Old Q" scene. --Nmajmani 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) If you watch this show on DVD (UK region 2) in French, the dialogue cuts to English at certain points, 'coinciding' with the cuts in the two-part version. For example: WORF: You have always used your knowledge of Klingon honour and tradition to get what you want from me. PICARD: Because it always works, Worf! Your problem is that you really do have a sense of honour, and you really do care about trust and loyalty. Don't blame me for knowing you so well. --Archer4real 15:26, November 20, 2009 (UTC) Star Trek Journey's End... In the ads in the NYC area, the last episode was hyped as Star Trek the Next Generation Journey's End. Was that ever the original title? Chimeradave Aug 6, 2008 Story and script This whole section (first part) is almost nothing but nitpicks. *''There is what appears to be a contradiction over the status of the trial as Q claimed in "Q Who" that Picard was exonerated. Later, Q said that the jury was still out on that trial in "True Q". However, this is cleared up when Q notes to Picard that Humanity will always be on trial and that it will never truly end.'' *''In the "present" time frame, Data reports that it is as if all three tachyon pulses originated from the Enterprise because they have an identical "amplitude modulation". In fact, one of the pulses comes from the Pasteur. This may be explained by the fact that the Pasteur's amplitude modulation may be identical to the Enterprise's amplitude modulation, or that this pulse was also configured by Data.'' *''Early on, Data establishes that events in one time frame have no effect on the other two. The formation of the temporal anomaly would seem to contradict this, or is excluded from this rule by Q. Later on, Data goes so far as to call the whole situation a paradox, though he may be using the term loosely.'' *''The idea that the temporal anomaly was created in the future and grew backwards in time is contradicted by its absence when the future Picard fails to find it, as well as its presence later on, supposedly - according to its own backwards logic - before its creation.'' *''The temporal energy generated by the anomaly causes La Forge's eyes to regenerate, allowing him to see. However, his blindness was due to a birth defect rather than an injury, so the tissue reverting to an earlier state shouldn't have healed him.'' *''Furthermore, if the anti-time energy caused the healing of La Forge's eyes, described by Dr. Crusher as "Organ regeneration," as well as the healing of "old scars," on other crew members, shouldn't Picard's artificial heart also be affected, surely this is also a prosthesis. One explanation could be that the captain's time-shifting has shielded him from the effects of different time-periods.'' If no responses or objections I'm going to remove all the ones listed above. – Morder 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :I agree with the proposed removal. There's pages and pages of good background info for this episode in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, but I haven't had a chance to add it all yet.– Cleanse 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ::I think it was said somewhere that we should keep notes on apparent contradictions in continuity. So, the first note would be okay to keep, I think. Lose the rest, though, as those are nothing but complaints regarding the effects of the anomaly. --From Andoria with Love 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Removed all but the first – Morder 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ::All of these nitpicks are back!!( 23:22, September 20, 2011 (UTC)) :::I've removed the ones I could find except for the second one in this list, as the article currently ties that to a statement by Trek staff.--31dot 23:35, September 20, 2011 (UTC) Removed :*''Of all the episodes in TNG's run, this was the only episode to involve both Q and the Romulans.'' Strange comment to make since each episode should be something new. — Morder 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) :*'' The "chase lights" under the viewscreen in the "past" move outwards. In early episodes, they moved inwards. :*'' The past captain's chair has the armchair panels constantly open. However, the chair was hinged in . Simply nits. --Alan 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Removed Production Note I removed this recently added note. *'' Production on began while this episode was being filmed. The scenes filmed were on the Enterprise-B sets. After production wrapped on "All Good Things...," the cast got a ten-day break before jumping back in to do work on the film.'' I have heard the ten day break info before, somewhere. I'm not so sure about the Enterprise B sets. — Vince47 02:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) :So why did you remove it? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Well I think I heard about the break before, but i'm not sure where. As for the B info, well it just showed up with nothing to back it up. I suppose it could have used in incite tag. To answer your question I removed it to see what you thought. — Vince47 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) :It needs citation, not simple removal (especially with no explanation given, not even a request for citation). --OuroborosCobra talk 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Removed Removed the following: *This is the only episode to feature Tasha Yar in a shuttlecraft. * The DVD release of this episode cassette 89 doesn't feature the entire cast on the cover - only Picard, Riker, Crusher, La Forge, Data and Worf are pictured in their future forms. Q is shown with Picard in the centre image but Deanna Troi is absent as her future character has died. I'm not sure what's significant about the first, but it should probably be on Yar's page anyway. The second seems like a nitpick, but even if it is not it should be on the page for that video release.--31dot 00:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) :I removed the following for nitpicking: :* During the first season, the two seats for the conn officer and the operations officer had headrests, these were not present in the subsequent seasons. The headrests should have been present in the 2364 timeline, however, they were not. :– Cleanse 11:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC) Nitpick case study Consider this edit removed as a nitpick: :The idea that the temporal anomaly was created in the future and grew backwards in time is contradicted by its absence when the future Picard fails to find it, as well as its presence later on, supposedly - according to its own backwards logic - before its creation. * Evidence: In dialog: GEORDI: ...because anti-time operates in the opposite way normal time does, the effects would run backwards through the space-time continuum. PICARD: Yes! That's why the anomaly was larger in the past. It was growing as it traveled backward through time. * Substance: The plot is significantly underpinned by the premise that the temporal anomaly grows backwards in time. * Neutrality: The statement is phrased in a critical way, "according to its own backwards logic" * Placement: It is place in a background note. Considering the very strong evidence for what seems to be a rather substantive contradiction, does only the phrasing need to be changed? Maybe if the article on the temporal anomaly was rewritten to note the observed behavior of the anomaly: that it first seemed to moved forward in time, and then as it reversed itself it skipped a short period before its creation. Of course this edit would be subversive, and most likely reverted as an attempt to disrupt the wiki to prove a point. I agree this is a nitpick, but I'm not certain I can describe why that is. Evidence and substance are subjective. What is the scope? Yes, in-universe they are quite significant but, in the wider view as a television show produced for entertainment, it was the last episode of the series and the writers wanted to give us a reminder of the past, and a glimpse of the future. The premise, while completely absurd, is just a syfy-y device to tie everything together, and could be considered irrelevant. It is in our own interest to disregard the illogic of the premise and enjoy the story. I mean, it wasn't nearly as ludicrous a plot as that of First Contact, and everyone seems to have enjoyed that. Can Memory-Alpha, as an encyclopedia of fictional facts, take this wider view and ignore something that, in-universe, is rather substantive? How do we define when the wider or narrower scope should be used in a way that doesn't allow disregarding any contradiction as irrelevant because Trek is just a TV show? (my attempt was the opening paragraph of MA:NIT) --bp 19:41, November 11, 2009 (UTC) Maybe it is not a nitpick and should be included? Ok, I'm fine with that too. Anyway, someone should comment. --bp 21:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC) :The phrasing does show a bias, and should be changed. As for it's states as a nitpick in general, I would say no. Any changes made to explain the behavior would be speculation, such as the idea that the anomaly didn't start moving back in time before a certain point after it's creation, and the future timeline seen was the "true" timeline, hence no anomaly before it was created. That aside, pointing out the absence IMO isn't any more of a nitpick then the rest of that section, since almost all of it is about contradictions, the tachyon pulses, warp 13, the trial, etc. (Forgive my sickness/drug induced ramblings, I hope it's at least readable) - Archduk3talk 22:17, November 24, 2009 (UTC) Arsenal of Freedom clip Just thought I'd mention: the article states that the clip of Riker (from The Arsenal of Freedom) has been edited, with Rice moved from one side of the screen to the other. However, I just watched both episodes and the clip appears unmodified (except for some basic colour matching to the S3-7 lighting scheme.) Ought to remove the erroneous statement. 05:08, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Incorrect Title for Beverly In Picard's alternate future, when the medical ship is being attacked by the two Klingon ships, there is a production error. Beverly gives the order "Warp speed -- get us out of here!" This is replied by "Warp power is off-line, sir." It should most definitely be "ma'am." I just found this really petty mistake interesting. It seems like something that should've been caught. :Both are correct, watch . - 01:55, June 7, 2011 (UTC) ::Or Star Trek II, or many other moments in TNG, etc. The fact is that Star Trek seems to prefer "sir" and "mister" always be used. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:29, June 8, 2011 (UTC) Quotes removed Removed the following passages and quotes, per MA:QUOTE "How d'ya like your tea?" "Tea? Earl Grey, hot!" "Of course it's hot! What do you want in it?" "Nothing!" : - Jessel, Data's housekeeper and Picard - "Fletcher! Tell Munoza and Lee to get up here right away!" "Aye, sir." "We have to realign the entire power grid. We'll all be burning the midnight oil on this one." "That would be inadvisable." "''Excuse me?" "If you attempt to ignite a petroleum product on this ship at zero hundred hours, you will activate the fire suppression system, which would seal off this entire compartment." "That was just an expression!" "Expression of what?" "A figure of speech. I was trying to tell him that we'd be working late." "Ah. Then 'to burn the midnight oil' implies late work." "That's right" "Hm. I am curious - what is the etymology of that idiom?" "Hm?" "How did it come to be used in contemporary language?" "''Er, I don't know, sir." : - O'Brien, Fletcher and Data "Five down!" "That's only four." ""Is it a Romulan plot?" "Is it a ploy to start a war?" Those are ''separate questions." (Picard rolls his eyes) : - '''Q' and Picard, playing 10 questions "I"? There you go again - always blaming me for everything. Well, this time, I'm not your enemy. I'm not the one that causes the annihilation of mankind. ''You are." "''Me?" "That's right. You're doing it right now. You did it before, and you'll do it yet again." "What sort of meaningless double talk is this?" "He doesn't understand! I have only myself to blame, I suppose. I believed in you. I thought you had potential. But, apparently, I was wrong. May whatever god you believe in... have mercy on your soul. This court stands adjourned." : - Q''' and '''Picard "Q's interest in you has always been very similar to that of a master and his beloved pet." (Picard looks at Data grudgingly) "That was... only an analogy, Captain." : - Data, to Picard "So, Captain, how long shall we stare at each other across the Neutral Zone!?" : - Tomalak, to Picard "Has Starfleet Command approved of this arrangement?" "No." "I like it already." : - Tomalak and Picard "You see this? This is you. I'm serious! Right here, life is about to form on this planet for the very first time. A group of amino acids are about to combine to form the first protein. The building blocks of what you call life. Strange, isn't it? Everything you know... your entire civilization... it all begins right here in this little pond of goo. Appropriate somehow, isn't it? Too bad you didn't bring your microscope. It's really quite fascinating. Oh, look! There they go. The amino acids are moving closer... and closer... and closer! Awwww! Nothing happened! See what you've done? ''" : - '''Q', explaining to Picard how life on Earth never formed because of the anomaly "The Continuum didn't think you had it in you, Jean-Luc, but I knew you did." "Are you saying that it worked? We collapsed the anomaly?" "Well, you're here, aren't you? You're talking to me, aren't you?" "What about my crew?" ""The anomaly...my ship...my crew..." I suppose you're worried about your fish, too. Well, if it puts your mind at ease, you've saved humanity...once again." "Thank you." "For what?" "You had a hand in helping me get out of this." "I was the one who got you into it, Jean-Luc. That was the directive from the Continuum. The part about the helping hand...was my idea." "I sincerely hope that this is the last time that I find myself here." "You just don't get it, do you, Jean-Luc? The trial never ends. We wanted to see if you had the ability to expand your mind and your horizons. And for one brief moment, you did." "When I realized the paradox." "Exactly. For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of existence." "Q, what is it that you're trying to tell me?" "You'll find out. In any case, I'll be watching. And if you're very lucky, I'll drop by to say hello from time to time. See you...out there." : - Q''' and '''Picard, their last conversation --31dot 23:01, August 5, 2011 (UTC) Error According to John de Lancie, upon hearing that The Next Generation was ending with the seventh season, "I actually felt motivated and sentimental enough to go to Rick Berman and say, 'You know I've never asked you for a job, but I did the first episode, and I understand you're doing a two-hour last episode, and I'd love to be in that." Amused, Rick Berman told de Lancie, "'Say no more. You're already in it anyway, whether you like it or not.'" (Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Continuing Mission) I recently conducted an interview with John De Lancie which can be listened to at http://www.geekcastradio.com/?p=6906 I asked him about this and he said that he never approached Berman or asked him this whatsoever. Just thought I would point this out. 01:23, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :I don't have time to listen to the interview right now, but if that's what De Lancie says, it would certainly merit a mention- though the previous information shouldn't be removed as it can be cited. If mentioned, it could say these are his more recent views.--31dot 02:45, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::I can confirm that the note as written is accurate to the source cited – see p. 206. It's part of a section with many de Lancie quotes reflecting on his character and the series as a whole. The book seems to be overall a very reliable source, with a lot of information matching up with scripts, other reference books and online interviews before and after its publication. I highly doubt the quote was made up. ::More likely is that de Lancie misremembered either then or now. As 31dot said, we could add a comment after the existing one to the effect of "However, in a interview, de Lancie denied that he had ever approached Berman." Then we've got all the bases covered and readers can make up their own minds about whether it happened or not. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:14, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::If you could point out at what time code in the interview he said that, it'd be great, so we can check what he said exactly.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:22, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :::Sorry, as I mentioned in the other post, I should have included Time Codes from the beginning :( - I ask him about approaching Berman at the 12:35 mark in the interview. OptimusSolo 07:39, February 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks for that, and for the interview. I have rewritten the information on the page.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:18, February 27, 2012 (UTC)